A forest’s value for wildlife management greatly depends on the productivity capacity of the land, the structure of the timber stand, the existing stage of plant growth and the specific wildlife habitat requirements.
The forest conditions across the landscape and how we work to manage those forests can greatly influence wild turkey populations. Across America’s Mid-South Rebirth, actively managing our pine and hardwood forests is critical to both current and future numbers of wild turkeys, as well as many wildlife species. However, there is much to consider when determining what is best for both wildlife and landowner.
For instance, how do you harvest your trees? Should you strive for an even-aged or uneven-aged timber stand? Do you allow trees grow back naturally, or do you replant with nursery stock? What is the end goal: Is it timber production, improving overall forest health or improving brood-rearing and nesting habitat for turkeys? The possibilities are endless.
With all the variations in practices, forest stands, wildlife needs and even landowner needs and desires, it’s difficult to provide specific direction across entire landscapes. Taking into account the pros and cons of practices, methods and long-term management regimes can help you figure out what works best in certain areas.
METHODS OF TREE HARVEST
• Clear-Cut: Removes all trees regardless of size or species from any stand of timber.
• Seed Tree: Removes all trees from the forest at one time except for a few scattered trees left to provide seed to establish a new forest stand. You must follow some post-cutting guidelines for this method of regeneration to succeed..
• Shelterwood: Removes trees on the harvest area in a series of two or more cuttings over time, so new seedlings can become established from the seeds of older trees to produce an even-aged stand.
• Group/Batch Selection: Removes clusters of trees of all sizes and ages in small areas, usually ranging from 2 to 5 acres in size.
• Individual Selection: Selects individual trees or small groups of trees at periodic intervals (usually five to 15 years) based on their physical condition or maturity to produce an uneven-aged stand.
EVEN-AGED VS. UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT
Even-Aged Management
| Pros | Cons |
|
Provides most stages of habitat succession, including early successional stages |
Lacks vertical diversity (vegetation from ground level to tree canopy)within forest stands |
|
Allows for horizontal habitat (cover-providing vegetation at ground level)across the landscape |
Eliminates matures trees and snags are not prevalent |
|
Reduces relative cost of timber management and harvest compared to uneven-aged management | Reduces species, age and size diversity of trees in stand |
|
Favors shade-intolerant tress that are generally higher in timber value |
Increases forest and habitat fragmentation, which can hurt some species living within forests. |
|
Aesthetically less pleasing than uneven-aged management |
Uneven-Aged Management
| Pros | Cons |
| Provides vertical diversity from multi-storied canopies (varying tree heights) in forest stands |
Little horizontal diversity and early-successional stage habitats |
|
Provides for a diversity of tree species, ages and sizes | Timber management and harvest costs are higher than even-aged management |
|
The scale of stand disturbance is less than even-aged management, although entries into stands may be more numerous | |
| Retains more mature trees and snags then even-aged management | |
|
Results in a more continuous forest canopy which is more aesthetically pleasing than even-aged management | |
|
Used for shade-tolerant tree regeneration and management |
NATURAL VS. ARTIFICIAL REGENERATION
Natural Regeneration
| Pros | Cons |
| Lower establishment costs | Less control over spacing and stocking rates |
| Less labor and equipment required |
Longer rotations needed |
|
Seeds adapted to the site | Greater risk of seed loss |
| Less soil disturbance | Lose option of using genetically improved seedlings |
| More visually appealing |
Pre-commercial thinning sometimes required |
|
Irregular stands that result are often difficult to harvest | |
|
High value trees at risk with possible lower stumpage value |
Artificial Regeneration
| Pros | Cons |
| Control of seedling spacing |
Higher establishment costs than natural regeneration |
| Use of genetically improved seedlings |
Greater chance for site disturbance and an increase in potential for soil erosion |
|
Less visually appealing |
— Mark Hatfield